Iconsult MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (computes metrics, shows checks, identifies gaps) and its optional diffing capability. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or performance characteristics, which would be needed for a perfect score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific metrics and usage guidelines in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value—none are redundant or vague—making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, and key metrics. However, it lacks details on the output structure (e.g., what the coverage metrics look like) and any limitations or prerequisites, which would be needed for full completeness in this context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the optional 'compare_to' parameter ('to see diffs') and contextualizing 'consultation_id' as part of coverage evaluation. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('compute coverage metrics') and resource ('for a consultation session'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'score_architecture' or 'validate_subagent' by focusing on coverage analysis rather than scoring or validation. It enumerates specific metrics like concept coverage, relationship type coverage, and gap identification, making the purpose highly specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Call before synthesizing to ensure thorough coverage') and includes an alternative usage scenario ('Optionally compare two sessions with the same project fingerprint to see diffs'). This clearly distinguishes it from tools like 'critique_consultation' or 'supervise_consultation' by focusing on pre-synthesis coverage checks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.